Dismissed

Smt P Amutha v. Smt Lakshmamma

Karnataka HC18 Nov 2023RFA/746/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A regular first appeal was filed challenging the dismissal of a suit for specific performance. The High Court heard the matter on the day of reporting settlement, found no infirmity in the lower court's decision given the lack of evidence to rebut the acquisition plea, and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Admission of the appeal is declined and the appeal is dismissed; no order as to costs.

Smt P Amutha Vs Smt Lakshmamma — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:41483 RFA No. 746 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 746 OF 2012 (PAR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. P. AMUTHA, W/O SRI. K. S. PALANICHAMY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2/2, VIDHYA NIVAS, GOWER ROAD CROSS, COX TON, BENGALURU - 560 005.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. K.R. BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, W/O LATE PILLA REDDY,

¶12

Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY R2 TO R4 HAS HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES VIDE ORDER DATED 25.05.2023)

¶14

SRI. P. MUNISWAMY REDDY, S/O PILLA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT TEMPLE STREET, BANASWADI, BANGALORE - 560 043.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:41483 RFA No. 746 of 2012

¶17

SMT. J. GOWRAMMA, W/O LATE. JAYARAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT PILLA REDDY COMPOUND, BANASWADI, BANGALORE - 560 043.

¶18

SRI. M. SRINIVASA, S/O SRI. P. MUNISWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT TEMPLE STREET, BANASWADI, BANGALORE - 560 043.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. R. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R4; R1 - DECEASED, R2 TO R4 ARE LRS OF R1; R3 - ABATED)

¶21

THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.12.2011 PASSED IN O.S.10346/1995 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVIII-ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, MAYO HALL, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR REPORTING SETTLEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Heard Sri. K.R.Bharadwaj appearing for the

¶25

appellant. None appears for the respondent.

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:41483 RFA No. 746 of 2012

¶27

The present appeal is filed challenging the

¶28

validity of the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2011 passed in O.S.No.10346/1995 on the file of XXVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, CCH-29, at Mayohall Unit, Bangalore.

¶29

The facts of the case in brief for the

¶30

consideration of the appeal for admission are as under:

¶31

A suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants stating that the plaintiff has entered in an agreement on 09.03.1994 for purchase of the immovable property bearing No.8 formed in Sy.No.251/1, situated at Banaswadi Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore comprising of Katha No.1054 measuring east to west 40 feet, north to south 53 feet and bounded on east by road, west by private property, north by vendors property and south by Choultry (hereinafter referred to as suit property of one Sri. Pilla Reddy).

¶32

It is the case of plaintiff that she has paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- to Pilla Reddy as advance sale

¶33

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:41483 RFA No. 746 of 2012

¶34

consideration. Time to conclude the sale transaction was fixed as three months. In the meantime, Pilla Reddy died on 05.05.1994 and the plaintiff could not get the particulars of the legal representatives of Pilla Reddy and therefore, she kept the suit agreement in abeyance. After tracing the legal representatives of Pilla Reddy, the plaintiff demanded the execution of the sale agreement. But the legal representatives of Pilla Reddy failed to execute the sale deed and therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit.

¶35

Upon service of suit summons, defendant No.2 entered appearance and filed written statement denying the entire allegations made in the plaint. It is also denied that the plaintiff was ever ready and willing to perform her portion of the contract.

¶36

It is further denied that Pilla Reddy had the exclusive right to execute the agreement in favour of the plaintiff.

¶37

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:41483 RFA No. 746 of 2012

¶38

Defendant No.2 contended that there was a suit

¶39

filed in O.S.No.6/1965 and R.A.No.22/1989 with regard to

¶40

the share to be worked out in the suit property as it was a joint family property and when the suit was pending, Bangalore Development Authority (for short 'BDA') acquired entire land in Sy.No.251/1 for forming Hennur Banaswadi extension layout and after completion of the acquisition proceedings, Pilla Reddy had no right whatsoever to sign the agreement of sale and therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶41

Learned trial Judge after raising necessary issues based on the rival contentions of the parties, recorded the evidence of the parties.

¶42

In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined herself as PW-1 and one witness on her behalf Sri. Jagannath as PW-2. The plaintiff relied on nine documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P1 to P9 comprising of office copy of the legal notice, envelopes, reply of defendant No.2, agreement dated

¶43

¶44

NC: 2023:KHC:41483 RFA No. 746 of 2012

¶45

09.03.1994, signature of Pilla Reddy and copy of pass book.

¶46

On behalf of the defendants, there was no evidence placed on record. On conclusion of recording of evidence, learned trial Judge heard the parties in detail

¶47

and after considering the material evidence placed on record on behalf of the plaintiff, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff failed to prove the suit agreement and also her readiness and willingness to perform her portion of contract.

¶48

Being aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.

¶49

Sri. K.R.Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned trial Judge has failed to notice that even though time fixed for completion of sale agreement was three months, on account of death of Pilla Reddy, the agreement was kept in abeyance as the plaintiff was unable to trace the legal representatives of

¶50

¶51

NC: 2023:KHC:41483 RFA No. 746 of 2012

¶52

deceased Pilla Reddy. Therefore, the impugned judgment has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for admitting the appeal for further consideration.

¶53

Respondent Nos.2 and 4 have engaged the services of the learned counsel Sri. R. Chandrashekar who remains absent before this Court.

¶54

In light of the argument put forth on behalf of the appellant in pursuance of the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶55

On such perusal of the material on record, it is seen that there was an agreement entered into by the plaintiff on 09.03.1994 in respect of the suit property. However, defendant No.2 has taken a specific contention that the property was subject matter of O.S.No.6/1965 and R.A.No.22/1989.

¶56

It is also a specific contention of defendant No.2 that during the pendency of the said proceedings, BDA

¶57

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:41483 RFA No. 746 of 2012

¶58

acquired the entire land in Sy.No.251/1 for formation of Hennur Banaswadi extension layout and as such, Pilla Reddy had no right whatsoever to execute the sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff.

¶59

Despite such specific contention taken by defendant No.2, the plaintiff did not choose to place on record any material evidence to show that the suit site was excluded from acquisition proceedings.

¶60

Further, since Pilla Reddy died, it is the legal representatives of Pilla Reddy who are required to adhere to the terms of the contract of sale said to have been executed by Pilla Reddy.

¶61

Defendant No.2 having taken the specific contention that the property is acquired, however, did not choose to place any material evidence on record by examining himself or placing some documentary evidence on record.

¶62

¶63

NC: 2023:KHC:41483 RFA No. 746 of 2012

¶64

However, the learned trial Judge took into consideration the contents of the agreement and by discussing the time that has been fixed in the agreement being three months and suit came to be filed only in the year 1995, took note of the relevant aspects of the matter and non suited the plaintiff by holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove the suit agreement as well as the readiness and willingness.

¶65

If the property is already acquired by BDA, as contended in the written statement, Pilla Reddy did not possess any right, title or interest in executing the sale agreement.

¶66

Under such circumstances, this Court does not find any legal infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgment so as to admit the same for further consideration. Hence, following:

¶67

ORDER

¶68

i. Admission is declined,

¶69

10 -

¶70

NC: 2023:KHC:41483 RFA No. 746 of 2012

¶71

ii. Appeal is dismissed.

¶72

iii. No order as to costs.

¶73

Sd/JUDGE

¶74

MCR

Smt P Amutha v. Smt Lakshmamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt P Amutha v. Smt Lakshmamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt S Parvathamma Vs Sri Appu Nair

R Gopala Krishna Vs the Karnataka State

The Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. Vs Sri H C Mahadevaiah

Mr Askiri Liaqath Ali Vs Sri Muniraju

K Ramegowda Since Dead by Lrs Vs K Puttaswamaiah Since Dead by Lrs

R Vijayalakshmi Vs Kevalchand Mehtha & Sons